Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gavin Newsom | News | Proposition 8

Schwarzenegger to Leno on Prop 8: 'It's Going to Be Overturned'

Arnold

Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on The Tonight Show last night and Leno asked him about Prop 8. The man who vetoed Harvey Milk Day couldn't have been more void of passion about the whole thing:

"This is not over," he said. "This decision, because I think in a year or two they will be back with another initiative. Eventually it's going to be overturned. I'm sure of that."

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Meanwhile, the man who would have Arnie's job (hopefully), took a "calm, firm, and resolute" approach to the ruling this time around, taking one-on-ones with reporters: "'We just feel one-on-one offered the best opportunity to get our message out,' said mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard. The sit-downs also guaranteed that there would be no repeat of Newsom's infamous, growling declaration in the City Hall rotunda last year after the court legalized same-sex marriages that gay and lesbian weddings were 'gonna happen - whether you like it or not.'"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments


  1. Its just ridiculous now. "Its going to be overturned" yadda yadda yadda.

    Fine. In 2, 4, 6, 8 years it will be overturned. Then it can possibly be overturned again, and then again, and then again.

    There has to be a way to stop this whole thing that our RIGHTS must be voted upon. What is that shit? Did they vote on African American Civil rights through the public? No. Did they vote upon Womens Rights through the public? NO. THAT HAS GOT TO STOP. And we should no longer stanbd for it.

    Posted by: Jeff | May 27, 2009 10:41:04 AM


  2. He should shut the fuck up considering he vetoed a bill that would have recognized the right to marry for same-sex couples.

    He gave the Far Right ammo in the Prop 8 debate. By not passing legislation, he allowed the Right to frame the issue as "Rogue liberal judicial activists ignored the will of the people."

    Had it been passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, they would not have had that in their arsenal because the legislators were responding to the wishes of the people.

    Fuck you Arnold too for fucking up our economy and budget.

    Posted by: Eric | May 27, 2009 10:46:05 AM


  3. Question for some gay lawyers

    All over the net supposed lawyers (not gay specific) are claiming that the ruling didn't outlaw civil unions in CA. In fact there are claims that the only thing it did was outlaw (temporarily till another proposition vote)the use of the word "marriage".

    Is this true? In other words till 2010 chance for another proposition vote can gays in CA get civil unionized?

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 27, 2009 10:46:38 AM


  4. It's just wonderful to see this discussion between these legal and intellectual powerhouses. That said, it says a lot that neither made a joke of it, and Leno is clearly aware of the ass he's revealed himself to be many times on gay issues and is actually being thoughtful.

    Also, though I can't find verification, I thought that Newsom's "like it or not" speech occurred at the LGBT center.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 27, 2009 10:52:27 AM


  5. Jimmyboyo, the answer is yes. Gays have been able to get civil unions in CA for quite a while, with extensive state benefits. Prop 8 didn't touch that.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 27, 2009 10:55:44 AM


  6. Sorry for the multiple posts, but apparently Newsom made the same comment at both City Hall and the LGBT Center. Sorry to be nit picking.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 27, 2009 11:03:30 AM


  7. Paul R

    Thanks

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | May 27, 2009 11:10:03 AM


  8. I had the same response, Paul. It could have been a lot worse. There was no nervous giggling or joking. They both messed up, big time, over the past year. Arnold clearly went on to do damage control, since he knows he did the wrong thing by signing the first veto. At least he went on-right away. Andy, I was surprised by your comment (and seeming frustration) that the governor wasn't more "passionate." He's sort of a monotone guy all the time, no?

    Posted by: K | May 27, 2009 11:11:28 AM


  9. Arnold couldn't be more of a fuckup.

    Posted by: SFshawn | May 27, 2009 11:11:39 AM


  10. Also, Wanda Sykes is scheduled to appear on the show tonight.

    Posted by: K | May 27, 2009 11:42:43 AM


  11. The ruling class in California feels guilty because they punted the ball to the Supreme Court and the results have been fairly diasasterous. They wanted same-sex marriage to pass. They just didn't want to take any responsibility for it passing.

    With the exception of Gavin Newsom, they did absolutely nothing to advance in this cause in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

    Schwarzenegger vetoed same-sex marriage twice and started the whole "let the people decide" meme. After they decided badly, he had a change of heart and started the whole "let the court decide" meme. Looked at how well that worked out. Ugh.

    Feinstein was resolutely against same-sex marriage (2004) before she was lukewarm for it (2008). In 2004, Boxer came out against it as well. Then went completely quiet for five years.

    Down in San Diego, Sanders was all "civil unions are enough." That is, until his daughter came out of the closet. Too little, too late. LA's Villaraigosa told gay pride parade marchers he was for "full equality." But otherwise didn't do much of anything until the very last weeks of the campaign.

    Pelosi was backed into a corner by a FOX News interviewer in 2004 and had to admit she was for same-sex marriage. But she sounded some unconvinced and nervous that it came off as "OK, you got me, I'm a liberal." Like Boxer, she has never spoken of the subject again.

    Posted by: John | May 27, 2009 11:52:42 AM


  12. @ Paul R - NO gays can NOT get Civil Unions in California. Only Domestic Partnerships.

    Posted by: Tralfaz | May 27, 2009 12:05:50 PM


  13. Support a constitutional convention in California, so we can reform the process to pass constitutional amendments. 50%+1 is too easy, maybe have it where it has to be passed in 2 consecutive elections or maybe by a 60% threshold.

    Posted by: Matt from California | May 27, 2009 12:07:13 PM


  14. Matt,

    They'll want to repeal Prop. 8 before they start talking about that. The state is completely dysfunctional. The Democrats should just agree to all of the Republicans' draconian budget cuts and go home for the year. Californians have made it clear they don't want a legislature and can rule by themselves. So, let "the people" rule the state for a whole year and see how it goes. Since voters are so smart and know everything.

    My bet is they'll fuck it up. Badly.

    Posted by: John | May 27, 2009 12:14:10 PM


  15. What a dick.

    Posted by: Sean McQuillan | May 27, 2009 1:17:10 PM


  16. the gays in Cali should just move to new england/east coast..

    Posted by: Ford | May 27, 2009 1:50:24 PM


  17. Sorry, Tralfaz, you are of course correct. I unintentionally equated the two because CA's domestic partnerships confer so many rights.

    By the way, I've always loved your username. I use Buzz Buzzard lots of places, but Tralfaz is much cooler.

    And John, good luck on getting the CA legislature to agree on anything, much less the Dems giving up and going home. They're all (Dems and Reps) self-interested monsters, even worse than Congress.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 27, 2009 1:54:21 PM


  18. @ JIMMYBOYO -

    Actually, it's better than that. The case yesterday stated that same-sex couples still have a fundamental right to the rights of marriage, just without the designation 'marriage'. The court fell over itself this time reminding readers that the reasoning behind In re Marriage Cases still stands, and that gays and lesbians are still a protected class deserving of equal rights in California. Unfortunately, the court mistakenly believes that domestic partnerships are equal to marriage, a reversal of their position last year.

    The ruling was actually not as bad as it could have been. I think Chief Justice George may have switched sides to ensure that he got to write the opinion and keep it free of other rights infringements.

    Posted by: Brian Cavner | May 27, 2009 1:59:19 PM


  19. Is Arnold for same sex marriage now? I could've sworn he said he believed marriage was between a man and woman.

    ellen degeneres tweeted that he voted against it.

    im baffled. where does he stand?

    Posted by: paul | May 27, 2009 6:26:19 PM


  20. Paul, he's always been noncommittal, vetoing two bills on it but also saying that he wasn't necessarily opposed but thought it should be decided by the courts or the people. Basically he's been an evasive snake, since I seriously doubt he gives a crap either way. He's worked with tons of gays in his career.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 28, 2009 6:57:40 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Adam Lambert Acknowledges Elephant in the Room, Says it's Pink« «